11 Reasons Why New Atheism Seems Repulsive.

Richard Dawkins, in a Reason Rally, urges his followers to “Mock them, ridicule them” (7). The small crowd attending cheers and claps thus affirming his MO to mock the religious. In an interview Dawkins even admits that he is “a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion. I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and thirties. But I’m getting more militant again now” (8).

People can see this for themselves. And what one might see is that a leading figure of New Atheist incites hate and prejudice against those who have religious convictions. One would be correct to point out that this is full blown intolerance. The New Atheist evidently doesn’t want to share the world with those who do not hold the same views about reality. This surely wouldn’t go far for making atheism an attractive prospect as most people do not want to be associated with bigots. The irony is that no-one will win converts by mocking those they are trying to convert, which is essentially what the New Atheists are doing.

2. of adherent ridicule.

A quick visit to an atheist fundamentalist’s website, or any YouTube video concerning atheists for that matter, will present one with a host of nasty, derogatory statements dished out against the religious and their religions. Again, one will find it hard to convert those of whom they mock, but surely these atheists who think of themselves as rational freethinkers should be aware of this?

3. of the intolerance.

New Atheist’s clearly do not wish to coexist with any religions and worldviews that isn’t their own narrow, dogmatic one. This view remains no matter how much benefit a given worldview has provided humanity. It is this sort of intolerance that led the atheists Stalin & Mao to butcher millions of their countrymen. In our Western culture, however, there is a huge shift of mind that attempts to avoid coming across as intolerant, and often it is viewed to be intolerant to possess a monopoly on truth. And if this is the case, the New Atheists aren’t going to make many friends.

4. it is vindictive.

The atheist Richard Rorty is known to have said that “we are going to go right on to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussible” (9).

This kind of logic parallels the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. It also clear to everyone that there is no respect for those who hold to other beliefs. It comes across as vindictive; it wishes pain and misery. One only wonders the consequences if Rorty directed such a claim at Islam instead of Christianity.

5. it is arrogant.

One new atheist urges those who do not agree with his opinions “to pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.”

This may come over as humorous, and would probably explain why atheist debaters get the loudest laughs from audiences but it remains bigotry. It reeks of arrogance. And because the atheist who made this claim was a prominent leader within their community it only causes one to question the followership. Individuals, masquerading as leaders, who say things like this are not the kind who make quality leaders. It also wouldn’t serve the purposes of the New Atheists since people, more often than not, orientate themselves away from those they deem to be arrogant.

7. adherents think that their thoughts are golden.

An annoying feature for any onlooker is that the New Atheists think that their thoughts are golden simply for being atheists (this would tie in with point 6 above). One doesn’t have to look very far to see atheists regularly referring to themselves as “freethinkers,” “brights,” “reasonable” and so on as if no other worldview has any right to these traits. The point being is that people calling themselves things (probably to make themselves feel better & stronger than they really are) doesn’t actually make them any of those things. In fact, one may persuasively argue that the New Atheists match religious fundamentalism to a tee. Sure, atheism is not a religion, but the New Atheists seem very religious. They’re clearly as dogmatic as the most dogmatic religious people.

8. of so much ignorance.

People have the right to believe what they want but at least respect the people of other worldviews. When critiquing the logic of other worldviews, religious or not, at least show that you have slightest clue what the other person actually believes. One needn’t respect the beliefs but at least respect those who hold those beliefs. A great many atheists I’ve interacted with over the last few years show huge concern for their comrades. Atheist historian Tim O’Neill, for example, claims that his atheist brethren are “historically illiterate… they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people.”O’Neill concedes that these atheists “try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level… all too often many atheists can be polemicists when dealing with the past, only crediting information or analysis that fits an argument against religion they are trying to make while downplaying, dismissing or ignoring evidence or analysis that does not fit their agenda” (1). Another atheist historian has noted that far too often atheists “eagerly embrace a position which contradicts an almost universal consensus among those who have devoted their lives to the academic discipline which concerns itself with these matters. We of all people should know better” (2). Lets not mention some scathing reviews of Richard Dawkins by the likes of atheist philosopher Michael Ruse.

10. say what?

Leaders that contradict themselves far too often give the impression that they lack intellectual consistency. Richard Dawkins has done this frequently. In one book he pens that “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” (3). But in a subsequent book he calls religious indoctrination evil, and also argues that “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument” (4). So, what is it then. Does evil exist or doesn’t it? Dawkins can’t answer you.

Elsewhere Dawkins praises the “why” question, saying that he “wanted to know why we’re all here. What is the meaning of life? Why does the universe exist? Why does life exist? That’s what drew me to science” (5). Then in one of his public debates he declares that the “The why question is just a silly question” (6). So what is it? Is the “why” question an important one or not?

But what can really rub the onlooker the wrong way are the large doses of arrogance and conceit that Dawkins and co. possess when making these inconsistent statements.

11. it solely accuses religion of violence.

No-one can deny that religion has had (and still does have) a hand in violence. Crusades, witch hunts, Jihad, they’re all there in the history books. However, the New Atheists will use all their effort to convince you that all religion is cut from the same cloth. They don’t draw boundaries; they simply haul religions into the same boat as if they all promote the same ethical systems and values. They will, however, promote their secularism as the idyllic utopia hoping that onlookers overlook barbaric acts on behalf of governments possessing atheistic ideologies. Soviet Russia, Mao, Pol Pot? Revolutionary France? What links them all? Simply that they were all atheists and they massacred millions of people to promote their godless agendas.

Of course the New Atheists will overlook all the good done in the name of religions. Universities, human rights, relief efforts, orphanages, medical care all done in the name of religion appears not to ever count for anything. But what gives? Surely evil is part of the human condition. Some have used religion to justify it, others atheism. People have used sports, politics, relationships, poverty etc. to justify all kinds of evil acts. Evil is part of the human condition, and not intrinsic to religions though religions can, and do, promote immoral laws. When these obvious reflections are willfully missed by the New Atheists they only seem to lack intellectual responsibility. If that is so then what else can we doubt? If so then how can we trust their diagnosis of reality and the purposes of human life?

Post navigation

39 responses to “11 Reasons Why New Atheism Seems Repulsive.”

When one compares the claimed intolerance of New Atheism, with say, burning people at the stake simply for not believing in your god, or even a different version of the doctrine, how do you think it comes out, James?

Well, James, it wasn’t just ”witches” now was it? And there were many thousands burnt by those representing your god. In fact a number of people weren’t burnt alive simply for reading the bible in English, if you recall. And you would have been among them only a few hundred years ago. Something to think about, while you are munching your supper,hmmm?

And let’s remember before you get on this particular kick, nobody killed in the name of atheism, but a great many were killed in the name of your made-up god.
And a great many are still being killed in the name of your god, whether he be Yahweh or Allah.

Surely you are above sinking so low as to point score regarding Death by Numbers?

Unless you have forgotten the genocide perpetrated by your god, Yahweh and the genocide of the Canaanites as ordered by your god, Yahweh?
And the murders in Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorrah etc?
Besides, as your religion has had centre stage for over 2000 years, persecuting all and sundry once Theodosius came to power I am sure you can stand a little ”In Your Face” criticism under the circumstances, don’t you?

Mr. Arkenaten is the typical new atheist who refuses to take responsibility for the deaths of millions at the hands of atheists. People like Stalin killed people just because they believed in God and forced the spread of atheism, if that isn’t in the name of Atheism I don’t know what is. Atheist dictators have caused more death and destruction in the name of atheistic communism than religion ever has, especially Christianity.

He tries to equivocate the deaths of incredibly wicked people like the Canaanites who believed doing atrocious acts like child sacrifice with those of the innocent victims of atheistic communism, it’s a loss in both the numbers game and the innocence game. On top of that in an Atheist worldview he can’t even account for what’s right and what’s wrong, he has no base to claim that the deaths of these people were even wrong. Atheism has no moral boundaries, since there is no moral lawgiver then we are our own moral lawgivers, making all morality subjective.

He can’t even make his argument without resorting to baseless claims and ad hominem, it’s the sign that it was an incredibly weak argument from the start and his own personal insecurity as well as his lack of basic understanding of the events in the Bible, effectively proving your statements about new atheism to be correct.

Thank you JaySwifa! Appreciate the support. I am very open to discussing my faith with others, but Arkenaten has been an annoyance on this blog for some time (at least 3 times we have discussed, but he is a typical atheist with his head in the sand combined with ad homs). Ive seen him do the very same thing on other wordpress Christian blogs, and when his accusation is answered he simply reposts it here or somewhere else.
I plan to ban him, the first person i will be banning on wordpress, sadly.

I have seen Arkeneten in Many comments, but I would have to disagree with you on banning him. The only thing he did was prove your point, and besides jswifa handled him with gentleness, kindness, and the facts. Great post regardless, and thank you!!

How on Earth does Arkeneten’s comments prove the point of the article? He was at no point vitriolic, abusive or bigoted. He pointed out a flaw in the original argument (that communism isn’t synonymous with atheism) and you turn on him like a pack of dogs.

JaySwifer did not rebut his comment with facts, but with biased opinion. Arkeneten never claimed that Stalin et al weren’t atheists, just that they killed for other reasons, not their lack of belief in God. Stalin for example killed mostly for political reasons (killing both theists and atheists indiscriminately). In fact Stalin killed many more by economic mismanagement than he ever did by direct action.
Atheists acknowledge that some atheists have done horrible things… the difference is the reason those things were done.
Your argument that they must have done it to spread atheism is as ridiculous as blaming theism for world war two, because it was started by Hitler (a Catholic).

OF COURSE Communism is synonymous with atheism, at its heart it is militantly atheistic, so Ark is wrong there. And Hitler was no Catholic, he was a pagan and militantly antichristian to boot. And as for reasons, if Stalin was right about the nonexistence of God, then why shouldn’t he starve, massacre and destroy his millions of victims? He had the power to get away with it so why not? On atheism, there is no reason NOT to do whatever you like, provided you don’t get caught. Just save one bullet for yourself at the end. Just like Hitler.

Thank you for this article. I have experienced the same thing so it’s definitely a pandemic. My faith in Christ has only increased cause they gave me a reason to look for reasonable answers. I guess I should be thanking them

This article would be a lot better if it wasn’t based on factual errors, logical fallacies (mostly strawman arguments) and ad hominem attacks.
In the first sentence you call atheists an “insignificant few”, despite the fact that atheists make up the third largest theological group on the planet.
Secondly, your attack on the atheist’s “dogmatic ideology” is disingenuous, as atheism has no ideology. It is simply a lack of belief in God or gods. Since when has “I don’t believe you” been a dogmatic ideology.
The only difference between a “new” atheist and an old atheist is that the new atheists aren’t scared of being tortured, killed and imprisoned by theist authorities.

HI, Phil. I called the New Atheists an insignificant few (not atheists, per se), besides that atheism is not exactly a mainstream position (although it is growing). I am sure that they do not make up the third largest “theological group” at all, they dont even feature near that. In fact, atheism counts for 2.3% of world belief, even tribal religion (3.1%) is more numerous (source). Besides, what do you mean by a theological group, please clarify that?

I also argued that that atheists do have an ideology, that it is a belief system based off philosophy, history, and science. Now, i don’t suggest that atheism is a religion, but it is certainly a belief. You didn’t engage any argument I made at all, except told me your opinion, and that can be dismissed.

And i think you clarification of the differences between New Atheists and atheists is problematic. No, the major difference is that the New Atheists are vitriolic, arrogant, abhorrent, and repulsive. Their arguments are the same, but they are bigots. However, I have no issue with atheists, I respect them and only disagree with them, but I wont say the same for the “New” Atheists, certainly not – they’re abhorrent, and dont deserve any attention.

You did not argue atheism is an ideology. You made the claim that it is an ideology, piggybacking off your claim atheism is a belief. Your “argument” was simply the statement that one believes your belief is wrong.

While that is certainly true of “strong atheists” or “gnostic atheists” as they are mire often called these days it is not true of all or even most atheists, who as I would, simply say “I don’t believe you.” To understand how this is not the same as saying I believe you are wrong simply consider another less controversial claim, there’s a cat in the front yard. I can say I don’t believe you, but that doesn’t mean I believe there is no cat in the front yard. It simply means I lack belief there is. I remain open to having it proven there is.

And before anyone says that is agnosticism, one should look up that word so as to see to be agnostic would be to say it cannot be known if there is a cat in the front yard. I am not claiming it cannot be known, but rather simply that I do not, and so far as I can tell, neither do you.

Now of you want to make a specific god claim, perhaps involving the moon splitting in half or the entire population arising from two people, such specific claims can and have been proven false.

OK… Atheists ARE the third largest group… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations making up more than a billion, second only to Christianity and Islam. While this data includes the secular, non-religious and agnostics, most of these do not have a belief in God or gods, so by definition are atheists.

I used the term “theological group” as atheists have a particular position on theology. An atheists is simple someone without a belief in God, surely you agree that this is a theological position?

There is no ideology to atheism. It is simply a lack of belief in God or gods. Are you even aware that most Buddhists, and many Hindus are in fact atheists?… Atheism has no ideology, because it has many many different ideologies. Atheism is an aspect of ideologies, it is not an ideology in and of itself.
Atheism is not a belief.It is a lack of belief. While I agree that atheists have beliefs, these beliefs are different from atheist to atheist and are not common to all atheists, this atheism itself is NOT a belief any more than not playing football is a sport.

While I agree that there are vitriolic arrogant and repulsive atheists, these faults are by no means unique to atheists… and I would argue tend to be more prevalent in theists. They certainly seem to be in the debates I have been a part of.

While I accept your comment about respecting atheists, your article gives the impression that you are attacking all atheists, not just the vitriolic arrogant ones.

By definition atheism IS an ideology
ideology
noun, plural ideologies.
1.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.
such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.
Philosophy.
the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.
theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

By definition atheism is NOT a theology:
theology
noun, plural theologies.
1.
the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2.
a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology?s=t

What you’re engaging in is what I’ve termed “atheistic newspeak”.
By this I mean that if a definition does not fit your agenda or spin, you change it to fit.
And you have the gall to call Mr. Bishop disingenuous.

Furthermore, I have yet to see you produce reputable and reliable sources of information as rebuttal, and wikipedia is hardly reliable or reputable.

Since when is atheism not a doctrine?
It’s a doctrine dedicated to the idea that no sort of God exists and that any who do believe in a god(dess) are blind, Luddite anti-science fools.
You do not provide anything to support your arguments, where as I provide acknowledged definitions that destroy your arguments.
Fascists and communists and socialists where known to hunt down and kill non-atheists (as part of their doctrine) yet you refuse to acknowledge they did what they did in the name of atheism. But then turn around and try to blame all Christians for the acts of a few who went against when Christ taught.

George Orwell would be dismayed at how well you’ve taken to the concept of newspeak.

I have to take exception to your last comment in section 13…
“Instead of giving credit where it is due, we have Mr. Hitchens accusing Mother Teresa of being a fraudulent.”
Shouldn’t a hypocrite be exposed as such? Since Mother Teresa’s (and Christopher Hitchen’s) death, much more information has come to light about her treatment of the poor, and it is grim reading.

The rest of section 13 is based on an egotistical fallacy… The fact that the long list of scientists happened to be Christians in no way proves that their discoveries were in any way caused or supported by their theism. It is just as possible that they managed their advances despite their religious beliefs.

I think irrational doesn’t fit your points, or at least it doesn’t fit most of your points in my opinion. The points you make are more about irritation perhaps, or reasons to dismiss; they are not about the rationality or logic.

There are PLENTY of stupid, ignorant, buffoonish atheists out there. But there are many who are thoughtful and kind. From what I’ve seen this is the case for people in general regardless of belief or faith. I’m an atheist but I think people who use the term “sky fairy” or mock are annoying and irritating as well.

A couple of comments regarding your points :

Point 6 – I have the same experiences with religious folks. It’s human nature to some extent. When someone does not have a counter-argument it’s not uncommon for them to lash out with mockery. I’ve often had my disbelief mocked, been called stupid, told I’m going to hell.

Point 7 –
>“Well, don’t you “believe” that God does not exist? I was under the impression that you believed it, that your believed your atheism. Perhaps I was incorrect.”

For myself, and for most atheists I know, there is no assertion that there is not a god. Just a lack of belief. Although I may not believe in your God, I feel the same way about Vishnu, Zeus, or any other gods. Atheism, by it’s definition, makes no assertion that there is NOT a god. Just no reason or evidence to believe that there is. Not saying there aren’t some atheists who do assert that there are no gods, but since there is no doctrine or belief system with atheism that’s not really relevant to atheism per se. It would be like saying that people who don’t believe in UFOs have some coherent doctrine and all believe X about the lack of UFO evidence.

Great article Mr. Bishop. I just discovered your blog the other day and it is very good. A couple of points:
With regard to your point #14 above, Bart Ehrman (atheist historian) has also said that one is far more likely to find a Young-Earth Creationist in the Biology Dept. of a major university then to find a single historian who claims that Jesus never existed. Another historian, N.T. Wright, has said that the Crucifixion, empty tomb, and post-resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples are as rock-solid historically as the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
With regard to banning Arkeneten, are you sure? He seems like a hard-core unbeliever, but just reading his responses has helped keep my thinking sharp, and kept me alert to avoid logical fallacies. Maybe he’ll never turn and believe, but who knows? Maybe someone ELSE will, watching the exchange. Anyway, keep up the good work for the Kingdom. It takes guts to do what you do.

Thank you Mark for the kind words. Arkenaten has quitened down a bit with his mocking words, and in that case I wont ban him. Same rules apply for all commentors.
Keep reading and sharing my writing Mark. God bless.

I must take issue with #5 because you have blatantly misrepresented and misquoted Hitchens. Misrepresented because the quote, in and out of context, is about protecting free speech, including speech he vehemently disagrees with (such as yours). When he says
“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended,” it is the culmination of his argument that he and all humans deserve to have their opinions defended against oppressors.

Misquoted because (seemingly to further twist the intent of his words), the end of the quote is actually “And anyone who disagrees with THIS (not me) can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.”

The word “this” refers, quite literally, to THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH i.e. the right to express oneself without fear of death or imprisonment. The quote you provided is not a pompous dismissal of his critics, but the end of a moving call for the importance of a basic human right.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt in calling it an oversight, but call your attention to the video of the referenced speech, starting near the relevant passage: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=5m40s

Certainly. I would very much like to hear a response to my main point. Namely, that Hitchens was not telling his dissenters to kiss his ass, but instead anyone who would try and illegally trample his (or literally anyone’s) right to free speech. And that therefore, your characterization of him as an angry bigot from a misrepresentation of a misquote falls into the category of “not even wrong”.

Great article. Like so much modern public discussion, if we get bogged down in symptoms we’ll never make progress. “Debating” an ignorant person, which most [not all] modern [“recreational”] atheists are, is by definition pointless, or near impossible.

The reason why such people, get so much “public oxygen”, is the collapse of the study of true history in schools, hence, human truth can be, so easily, corrupted and further, the equal collapse of true scientific reasoning in schools.

People like Dawkins, the late Hitchens [C], Degrasse Tyson stun me, not for their claimed “intelligence”, but their ability to keep a straight face, while they spin their often nonsense filled arguments and that others have not, publicly, taken them long-ago to task!

A good starting point, would be to point out, that most of the new atheists, profit from religion – BIG time! You don’t have to speak for something, to profit from it, ie, the “negative review” is a most powerful marketing technique! In fact, the likes of “Dawkins & Co” would easily rival some of the highly suspect “TV preachers” in how they have used religion for personally, very financially rewarding ends! Books…more books..more books, speaking tours…..t-shirts, TV shows, movies…more books, more t-shirts, time for yet another speaking tour and all based, on a subject matter – they not only don’t believe it, they don’t even believe exists – dare I suggest, many might say, that either makes them 1) outright “con artists” or 2) “insane” – in fact, it’s gotta be one of the two!

I was a devout Christian for over 50 years. I have only become an atheist in the past year. After two years of study, comparing texts, reading history, reading the bible cover to cover a number of times, studying the archaeological records and more – I found that there was no proof for the Christian god. I would agree that some “new atheists” are brash and rude. But to be honest I’ve gotten just as much rudeness from Christians and Muslims as I’ve seen directed at them. Christians have told me “I hope you burn in hell” “you’ll be seeing Satan when you die”, etc. Muslims have told me they hope I get raped and worse. For every point you’ve mentioned I could easily substitute the word “Christian” for “atheist” and it would also be true. Personally I think we ALL need to tone down the rhetoric and TRY to have mature discussions. But I also feel that no belief system is beyond ridicule – including any that I hold. Beliefs do not have feelings. Challenging beliefs is the ONLY way humanity can move forward.

Hmm… #1,2, 3 and 4 are pretty much the same gripe, #6 and #9 are completely missing, and the rest are more true of Christians than atheists.

Except #11. A vital, salient point. Atheists in their fear of religious abuse are more afraid of superstitious conspiracies than of rational, competent bullies, many of whom use modern science and technological magic, not to mention modern linguistic manipulation, to reek havoc upon the world. This is far more effectively dangerous stuff than the worst murderers in all the centuries that came before us.

“Atheist” governments and rulers don’t kill people because they believe in god; they kill them as a political strategy to amass and consolidate power. It keeps people in line and obedient and less likely to politically oppose them.